Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I would too. Considering modern science has only existed for a short time now I don't doubt why it hasn't occurred. Also, out of the nature of miracles we would technically have to have a microscope on a highly improbably event. Take water into wine example, you would essentially need to have the water prior and wine after and do chemical tests on each. This would need to be done in a controlled environment. It would still be rejected by most people as "I didn't witness it turn into wine, so how do I know they aren't just trying to get youtube views?", which is where I would be. I don't think God is into performing magic tricks in any case....I still would like an example of a time when we were able to distinguish that an event was determined to be caused by God. Not, "if this story were true it would be a miracle by definition" or other hypothetical statements. OP asks for a method to distinguish miracles from natural events. I would only be interested in a method that has produced results.
Very true. I'll concede that maybe miracles have happened that we haven't caught yet. But if we have thus far been unsuccessful at determining the supernatural is even possible, what makes it reasonable to assert the supernatural actually does intervene?I would too. Considering modern science has only existed for a short time now I don't doubt why it hasn't occurred. Also, out of the nature of miracles we would technically have to have a microscope on a highly improbably event. Take water into wine example, you would essentially need to have the water prior and wine after and do chemical tests on each. This would need to be done in a controlled environment. It would still be rejected by most people as "I didn't witness it turn into wine, so how do I know they aren't just trying to get youtube views?", which is where I would be. I don't think God is into performing magic tricks in any case....
Hawkins answer is probably pretty close to answering your question.Very true. I'll concede that maybe miracles have happened that we haven't caught yet. But if we have thus far been unsuccessful at determining the supernatural is even possible, what makes it reasonable to assert the supernatural actually does intervene?
I understand you. But it does seem like there are no verifiable examples of a miracle occurring where it is reasonable to credit the supernatural/God.Hawkins answer is probably pretty close to answering your question.
I think it is reasonable to believe something is a miracle when it has occurred in a significant religious context. For instance, Jesus, claimed to be the divine son of God who predicted his death and resurrection. He was later executed by the Romans and came back to life. In this case, I think it is rational to believe Jesus' resurrection as a miracle, because of the context of Jesus' life/death/resurrection. This isn't some Joe down the block who had a heart attack and later came back. Jesus made specific religious claims, etc... I don't need to prove that there is no natural explanation to Jesus resurrection. At best it just needs to be unlikely explained by natural causes. In this case, I think it is unlikely that Jesus came back to life due to natural causes (based on the account provided in scriptures).
HEY YOU CAN'T DO THAT!A lack of belief in a god is self evident!
I'm fine with that. I fully understand that when I die if Jesus was not raised from the dead I would be the first person to admit my foolishness (granted I would be dead..), BUT if I am right.... I have way more than anything you guys can imagine.I understand you. But it does seem like there are no verifiable examples of a miracle occurring where it is reasonable to credit the supernatural/God.
All sorts of pleasures are sacrificed, that's true. Not just what you would call "sin" either. But that discussion would be waaay off-topic.I'm fine with that. I fully understand that when I die if Jesus was not raised from the dead I would be the first person to admit my foolishness (granted I would be dead..), BUT if I am right.... I have way more than anything you guys can imagine.
All I would have lost is the pleasures of sin.
Roger that. Rationality as a criteria is pretty easy to meet. I don't mean to say that to discount people who believe in miracles. I am just saying that it is all too often cited as some type of 'holy grail' of epistemic function. I don't see rationality as such. People are rational in believing a lot of things I don't. This is because rationality is only based on 'properly functioning cognitive processes'. If someone does their due diligence to investigate whether an event has a natural explanation while maintaining 'properly functioning cognitive processes', and determine that there is no natural explanation, then they have met the criteria of rationality.All sorts of pleasures are sacrificed, that's true. Not just what you would call "sin" either. But that discussion would be waaay off-topic.
If we have no way of showing that supernatural events occur, it seems irrational to me to think that supernatural events occur. But I think I've said that already and I don't think I have anything more to add to the conversation at this point. I appreciate the discussion.
@DogmaHunter @devolved
Let's clarify some things:
The OP asked how to distinguish a miracle from a random event. We can do this purely on definition.
1) A miracle is an event with God as a causal factor. A random event would be produced by natural causes.
2a) When I state that when we determine an event does not have a natural cause it must have a supernatural cause - I am stating that not out of some type of experience, but out of a necessity of definition.
2b) Your reply is something like "well what if we just don't know the natural explanation yet?". My answer covers this, because I am only describing how we can determine if a miracle has occurred if it is true. Please wrap your head around this before you reply again.
2c) You come back again asking how it couldn't be magic faeries or harry potter. I don't have any good reason to believe they would be such and you haven't provided any reason for miracles to occur from magic faeries. Further, there are good reasons to believe God would be the only causal source of miracles. The most obvious reason is that when you begin to talk about a being that exists outside of our universe who exerts causal power on our natural world everyone is talking about God. Unless you are just using magic faeries as an alternative to God - in which case - you are just talking about God and calling Him magic faeries...
2d) You also come back saying it is an argument from ignorance, but it is not. Like I said in 2c, there are good reasons to believe God would be the causal factor in miracles. You haven't provided any alternatives to God. You have the burden of proof if you wish to show that God is not the causal factor of supernatural events.
2e) if you are stating that it is an argument from ignorance in regards to the claim of miracles - ONCE AGAIN, I am not offering a proof of miracles. I am only showing how we should determine something is a miracle IF TRUE.
3) Another objection you guys make is that "Axioms aren't bad when you are using them our of necessity that doesn't need to be verified. These are generally and pragmatically accepted as self-evident. The question about God is not a self-evident axiom. You are simply making it such for yourself."
Belief in God is self evident! Reformed epistemology provides a model by which God is a properly basic belief. Humans have what is called a "sensus divinitatis" (sense of the divine). It works like this, you look at a mountain vista and it occasions the belief "God made these mountains" - you are in extreme doubt about your future and the sensus divinitatis occasions the belief "God can hear my prayers". This is exactly how our other senses function. Therefore, my belief in God is not an "axiomatic assumption" (I think you guys need to update your vocabulary BTW).
Hawkins answer is probably pretty close to answering your question.
I think it is reasonable to believe something is a miracle when it has occurred in a significant religious context. For instance, Jesus, claimed to be the divine son of God who predicted his death and resurrection. He was later executed by the Romans and came back to life. In this case, I think it is rational to believe Jesus' resurrection as a miracle, because of the context of Jesus' life/death/resurrection. This isn't some Joe down the block who had a heart attack and later came back. Jesus made specific religious claims, etc... I don't need to prove that there is no natural explanation to Jesus resurrection. At best it just needs to be unlikely explained by natural causes. In this case, I think it is unlikely that Jesus came back to life due to natural causes (based on the account provided in scriptures).
The root of the problem is located in your proposed "methodology" of how to distinguish natural from supernatural events.
It does not require a demonstration that the event IS supernatural. Instead, it requires a demonstration that the event is not natural. You are simply asserting that it is one or the other. Which essentially means that supernatural is anything and everything that isn't natural. So you identify the supernatural by a process of elimination, not by direct identification. I consider this a problem.
To be able to do that in this case, you'ld have to have a complete understanding of everything that is natural. Science would essentially have to be "done".
Obviously, that is not the case. Also, consider the thought exercise: how would you know that science is "done"? How can you know that you know everything there is to know?
I say that you wouldn't - because you don't know about the things that you don't know.
Having said all that...
By doing all this reversing in that "method", it literally requires an appeal to ignorance.
It's textbook argument from ignorance.
So... this method is worthless. It doesn't work.
I have never heared of that term before, but fine... If you wish to call it that.
Your tendency to have faith based beliefs is idd instinctive. I'm aware of that.
It is a well known phenomena in psychology. Tied to a type of cognitive error: the false positive. We have a tendency to look for patterns, jump to conclusions and believe those conclusions as if our life depends on them. Some type of "better safe then sorry" tendency. A survival trick, basically.
My logic is:
Everything that does not have a natural cause has a supernatural cause
I don't need to know all natural causes in order to make the statement "if an event does not have a natural cause, then it has a supernatural cause".
I'm not even trying to prove to you supernatural causes exist. An atheist could say the same thing I am.
Your last point is just the genetic fallacy. You are attempting to explain the origin of my beliefs as a way to falsify them. Nice trick.
I'm almost afraid to jump in with this topic, I'm sure to offend someone...
However, could we summarize the arguments in favor of "natural causes/random events" and against miracles as:
And those who think that miracles happen as:
- Since we don't know yet what we may eventually know, we can't say something is a miracle as opposed to an explainable phenomenon, understandable to us sometime in the future. (Note: This could even include the resurrection".) If this is the case, naturally nothing ever will be or could be seen as miraculous.
So distinguishing between the two really depends on ones world view and is not a method.
- The unexplainable is the miraculous. (especially if it has a perceived purpose.) In this case their idea of what is a miracle could change over time due to new information they trust.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?